"If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.

So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market? I personally don't think it is indicative of a "deficiency" any more than the 1% marketshare of Linux on the desktop is.

Deficiency meaning a lack of popularity, not any functional impediment. For the record, yes, I do think that Windows' 5% marketshare is a problem, and if Microsoft were twisting statistics in this way it would be equally wrong.

It is a matter of popularity and where the broad corporate backing is - no major players are backing Linux as a desktop play (with the minor exception of Ubuntu, for what that is worth). If anything, Windows Phone has even less of an excuse for its poor showing in mobile, because at least it has the might of Microsoft behind it...

The Desktop and Mobile markets are very different (as you seem to allude to) but then you try to make a direct comparison which I think is wrong.

The mobile market has many dynamics that the PC market does not, including more "Gate keepers" so to speak with interests that sometimes run contrary to that of Microsoft's and creates friction at the sales channel.

I am not convinced that most people who try Windows Phone hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem in the sales channel that Microsoft has made recent strides towards addressing.

I do get your point, sort of... But your saying that there is no context... There is context, i.e. Linux is on more devices across the broad market - that is the context. It isn't about making a headline, it is a relavent statistic as long as you take it for what it is. It is telling you that a hell of a lot of companies are using it for a wide variety of things, granted desktop isn't high on the list...

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.

Deficiency meaning a lack of popularity, not any functional impediment.

Ok. Well that sounds a bit less insulting that way.

For the record, yes, I do think that Windows' 5% marketshare is a problem, and if Microsoft were twisting statistics in this way it would be equally wrong.

I still don't think it is twisting statistics - it is just a _different_ statistic...

The mobile market has many dynamics that the PC market does not, including more "Gate keepers" so to speak with interests that sometimes run contrary to that of Microsoft's and creates friction at the sales channel.

You think Microsoft doesn't similarly act as a gatekeeper in the desktop market? The difference is Linux has no one to act on its behalf in that market...

I am not convinced that most people who try Windows Phone hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem in the sales channel that Microsoft has made recent strides towards addressing.

I am not convinced that most people who try Linux on the desktop hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem with lack of vertical integration and corporate backing. Unfortunately, there is no one that has _really_ tried to address it, so it has never had a real chance to gain any footholds.

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.

But it isn't a mobile statistic... So why try to bend it into one? It is simply "marketshare across all device types" - the mix in each product category or the relative number of devices is not the point. Of course the high number is because of Android, but that doesn't invalidate anything.

I would wager quite heavily that if the combination of Windows and Windows Phone ever crossed 50% in such an "across all categories" type of statistic they would be trumpeting it all over the place (and have in the past). I don't blame them...

But it isn't a mobile statistic... So why try to bend it into one? It is simply "marketshare across all device types" - the mix in each product category or the relative number of devices is not the point. Of course the high number is because of Android, but that doesn't invalidate anything.

I think this is exactly the case where Stallman's otherwise pretentious "GNU/Linux" wording is useful, as it shows the difference between your reasonings clearly.

GNU/Linux, the operating system, stands at 1% on the desktop. It is a context we are well aware of.

Linux, on the other hand, is the most widely used kernel with 42% market share. That is also a context, because it means that it won't go away easily, and we may even expect it to improve if every (mobile) HW vendor now has to write drivers for it. This wasn't, and perhaps still isn't, the case for regular PCs.

It is telling that you are talking of the mobile market and exclude tables, notebooks like the Chromebook on the way. Fact is all of them are computers and it doesn't become more personal then a smartphone. The shift of customers away from workstations to thinner devices is telling us that there is no hard border. Its all computers, the categories are blur and it makes more sense tro include all computers in a statistic then defining fake borders to make a point.

I didn't come up with the numbers, I merely commented on them. If you're trying to make a point, then make it.

Chromebooks do not yet have an appreciable impact on these numbers, and I'm not yet convinced they will. Its nice that you like Chromebooks, but it would be nicer if you presented a situation in where they could conceivably come to dominate, then we could argue on those merits.

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.

Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

Taken the shift away from desktop-workstations as mass-consumer devices and understanding them as legacy that is transforming its plausible no bigger changes happen there anymore. May the localized power-eating fat-boxes rest in piece while the new-age transportable identities replace them. Bye betamax, high digital world.

Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

The LINUX kernel, yes. But a full LINUX distro? Kind of. But where does LINUX start, and a derivative work stop? Is Android a LINUX, or and OS using LINUX as a platform to run apps? The fact that Android Apps run (mainly) in a VM and that VM has been ported to countless other OS (Other LINUX distros, QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, etc) and those Apps run happily, with or without the underlying Kernel and OS services - what does that tell us? I know what you think as you've made that fairly obvious, but I'd say - LINUX was just a convenient platform to build Android upon. But really, it might have equally have been BSD or another OS, had one existed in a form that was useful and fitted the profile. Is WebOS LINUX? Is Meego LINUX? Not as most desktop users would consider the OS. I mean, some parallels can be drawn, but it's more of an analogue rather than an exact correlation. I think it's very easy to point at any project that uses the LINUX kernel and shout "another LINUX OS", but for me there's more to it. Or can we start pointing at the Dreamcast, XBOX, XBOX 360 and all of the Windows CE based devices (including Windows Phone 7 and 8) and say "Windows"? Can we look at all of the iOS devices and say "Mac OS X"? After all, it's a very similar situation. Cherry picking your definition is just a convenient way to cheat the figures, in my opinion (obviously.)